Disjoint Reference and Wh-Trace 1981

Abstract

This article explores the ramifications of an analysis of disjoint reference for the theory of core grammar.1 The analysis we will adopt accounts for coreference possibilities between pronouns and Wh-traces and, following May (1981), also provides an explanation for the COMP-to-COMP condition on Wh-Movement of Chomsky (1973). The central assumption of the analysis — that Wh-trace binding is exempt from the Propositional Island Condition (PIC) and the Specified Subject Condition (SSC) — allows for a simplification of the theories of binding and indexing, and also provides an argument that the Subjacency Condition is properly interpreted as a condition on representations rather than a condition on derivations.2

Preview

Notes

For further discussion of disjoint reference, see for example Lasnik (1976), Chomsky (1980). On core grammar, see Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) (hereafter, C&L) and Lasnik and Kupin (1977).Google Scholar

2.

See Freidin (1978; 1979). Chomsky (1980), and Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980) for discussion of conditions on representations.Google Scholar

6.

We assume that Whis quantifier and as such does not refer. See Chomsky (1977a).Google Scholar

7.

The (a)-examples are often referred to in the literature as “crossover phenomena” on the grounds that Wh-Movement over a pronoun affects coreference possibilities (see Postal (1971) and Wasow (1972)).Google Scholar

10.

See Chomsky (1980, fn. 46) for discussion of how indexing might be done when a lexical anaphor receives an index in the syntax via movement.Google Scholar